really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in message
...
babelfish wrote:
Then I should send you a Colorthink screenshot of our profile matched
against Costco's as proof of the difference. You would clearly see that
we
have about a 20 percent greater gamut volume, mostly in dark saturated

I would have agreed with you a few months ago, but they have moved to a
richer
gamut themselves.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/custom/enhanced_labs.htm

Many, if not most of the Costco labs now use this. Did you compare their
enhanced profiles or their standard [from only a couple of months back]?

You're assuming a lot. These profiles don't represent richer gamuts at all.
They're made through the use of more color patches in the profile targets.
One makes a profile by first printing a target of anywhere from about 300 to
1400 or more color patches and the results are read by a spetrophotometer
into software that builds the profile. But using more patches does NOT
increase the dmax or the gamut of the device being profiled. It only gives
the profiling software more information to go on to build a more accurate
profile, and this may not even be the result. Simply having more patches to
profile doesn't even necessarily result in a better profile as it can
increase the numbmer of spikes and erroneous data. The printer needs to be
linearized to behave well first, and a number of other things, including the
averaging of multiple runs through the spectro, make for smoother and more
accurate profiles. But none of these things give you greater gamut or better
blacks any more than measuring something in millemeters rather than inches
makes something larger.

We've been at the cutting edge of color management, making profiles and
profile targets for many years. Unlike Drycreek, we don't sell profiles on
the cheap because we know that to do it right it takes more work than people
are typically willing to pay for, so we leave it up to highly paid
consultants who do it right. I know that it would cost thousands to properly
color manage each location for Costco rather than the nearly free
self-promotional service that Drycreek provided to them and other bottom
feeders. To give you an idea of my experience in this, we're the sole
producer the coveted HCT color targets for Hutchcolor Consulting, used for
high end scanners which sell around the world for up to $600 apiece. Color
management training by Hutchcolor sells for thousands per day and Costco
people never got anything like this. We do high end drum scanning, fine art
reproduction and retouching for ad agencies, pharmaceuticals and museums. I
know what I'm talking about where it comes to color management. It's hard to
not sound like a snob here, but my fur goes up when I see so many gullible
people buying into stuff they know little about because it's packaged well
at an attractive price.

Still, I will be glad to do side by side comparisons pretty soon. I value
the
quality over the price, in general. I think you are likely correct, but
Costco does offer an incredible value for a color profiled option, and I
must
do the due diligence to rule them in or out.

There's no question that Costco and their ilk are cheap and a good bargain
for many people - kind of like fast food and certainly better than doing
your own printing at home at this stage. However, don't be fooled into
thinking that they can perform quality work or even custom operations. Their
expertise and equipment options are severely limited by design in order to
make money at price levels near the cost of materials alone. Anyway, the
cost of doing quality imaging is in the expertise alone, not the machine.
Would you trust someone who does accounting for the price of pencils? It's
insulting.

"Philip Homburg"
The advantage of digital printing is that you can order prints from any
lab
as long as shipping shots remain reasonable.

You mean it's all the same except for the SHIPPING PRICE? We've really
reached a new low.

The problem I have is that other than word of mouth, there is no way to
find a good lab, because they can't bothered to tell you what they do.

You've got it backwards because you've been trained to think you're ordering
fast food from a wall board menu at McDonalds. Like a good restaurant or
even a machine shop, doctor or carpenter, a good lab will be able to handle
your requests and advise you on the best approach. It's a service business.
No offense, but like many people, you've been conditioned to think this way
by our current culture of discounters, franchisers and niche marketers.
Imaging is very personal so options and expertise should be very important
to you.

And don't ever think that just because a photo was shot digitally, then it's
going to be printed the same way everywhere as nothing could be further from
the truth. Even Time Warner can't get it that good between their presses and
they spend millions every year trying. I often see the same ad in two places
in the same magazine that don't match one another after the advertiser has
spent a fortune to place it. Yet people expect the same print from different
places for 13 cents. It hasn't happened yet and it won't.

babelfish wrote:

You're assuming a lot. These profiles don't represent richer gamuts at all.
They're made through the use of more color patches in the profile targets.
One makes a profile by first printing a target of anywhere from about 300 to
1400 or more color patches and the results are read by a spetrophotometer
into software that builds the profile. But using more patches does NOT
increase the dmax or the gamut of the device being profiled. It only gives
the profiling software more information to go on to build a more accurate
profile, and this may not even be the result. Simply having more patches to
profile doesn't even necessarily result in a better profile as it can
increase the numbmer of spikes and erroneous data. The printer needs to be
linearized to behave well first, and a number of other things, including the
averaging of multiple runs through the spectro, make for smoother and more
accurate profiles. But none of these things give you greater gamut or better
blacks any more than measuring something in millemeters rather than inches
makes something larger.


Dry Creek has a good reputation, which is why [I presume] that Costco is using
them. So, you didn't answer my question. Did you run the test [where you
determined DMAX numbers] based on a print using an older profile or the newer
profile? I am just curious what those results might look like.

We've been at the cutting edge of color management, making profiles and
profile targets for many years. Unlike Drycreek, we don't sell profiles on
the cheap because we know that to do it right it takes more work than people
are typically willing to pay for, so we leave it up to highly paid
consultants who do it right. I know that it would cost thousands to properly
color manage each location for Costco rather than the nearly free
self-promotional service that Drycreek provided to them and other bottom
feeders. To give you an idea of my experience in this, we're the sole
producer the coveted HCT color targets for Hutchcolor Consulting, used for
high end scanners which sell around the world for up to $600 apiece. Color
management training by Hutchcolor sells for thousands per day and Costco
people never got anything like this. We do high end drum scanning, fine art
reproduction and retouching for ad agencies, pharmaceuticals and museums. I
know what I'm talking about where it comes to color management. It's hard to
not sound like a snob here, but my fur goes up when I see so many gullible
people buying into stuff they know little about because it's packaged well
at an attractive price.


Like I said, I will give your product a try and compare [visually] for myself.
I will try high contrast and low contrast images, as well as shadow and bright
images and of course a nicely color saturated image.

Still, I will be glad to do side by side comparisons pretty soon. I value
the
quality over the price, in general. I think you are likely correct, but
Costco does offer an incredible value for a color profiled option, and I
must
do the due diligence to rule them in or out.

There's no question that Costco and their ilk are cheap and a good bargain
for many people - kind of like fast food and certainly better than doing
your own printing at home at this stage. However, don't be fooled into
thinking that they can perform quality work or even custom operations. Their
expertise and equipment options are severely limited by design in order to
make money at price levels near the cost of materials alone. Anyway, the
cost of doing quality imaging is in the expertise alone, not the machine.
Would you trust someone who does accounting for the price of pencils? It's
insulting.

I am not arguing that your product may be better, however, you have an
interest in [us readers] believing this. To me, the proof will be in the
prints and I will have to try you both side by side.

BTW ... Costco only offers a single paper, a Fuji Crystal Archive paper in
glossy and lustre versions.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

In article YaW8h.6987$oP6.3464@trnddc03,
babelfish wrote:

"Philip Homburg"
The advantage of digital printing is that you can order prints from any
lab
as long as shipping shots remain reasonable.

You mean it's all the same except for the SHIPPING PRICE? We've really
reached a new low.

No, it means that for me, a lab in the US will probably be unable to compete
with a lab in .nl because the shipping costs are much higher for the lab in
the US.

The problem I have is that other than word of mouth, there is no way to
find a good lab, because they can't bothered to tell you what they do.

You've got it backwards because you've been trained to think you're ordering
fast food from a wall board menu at McDonalds. Like a good restaurant or
even a machine shop, doctor or carpenter, a good lab will be able to handle
your requests and advise you on the best approach. It's a service business.
No offense, but like many people, you've been conditioned to think this way
by our current culture of discounters, franchisers and niche marketers.
Imaging is very personal so options and expertise should be very important
to you.

And don't ever think that just because a photo was shot digitally, then it's
going to be printed the same way everywhere as nothing could be further from
the truth. Even Time Warner can't get it that good between their presses and
they spend millions every year trying. I often see the same ad in two places
in the same magazine that don't match one another after the advertiser has
spent a fortune to place it. Yet people expect the same print from different
places for 13 cents. It hasn't happened yet and it won't.

I don't know what Time Warner does, but the current consumer lab I use is
very predictable. It may not be repeatable to within 0.1 delta-E, but it works
well enough.

It looks like you want to offer a service that I don't want to buy.

I want a predictable, repeatable way of converting bits to high quality prints.
In the ideal case, I can simulate your printer on my computer, and determine
what is best. Then (again in the ideal) case, if I like the print that
results from the bits I sent, I should be able to send you the same bits in
10 years time, and get exactly the same print.

It doesn't matter if different labs provide different results from a single
digital image. As long as the labs provide all the data I need to model
their printing services, I can come up with the right image for each printer.

You are sort of implying that printing has to rely on personal service.
And that is probably why you lose customers. Mass produced item can be of
high quality. Many people are willing to pay for better than average mass
produced items. Very few people can afford hand crafted items.

So instead of going to you, people will buy a high quality (mass produced)
printer, and make their own prints.

Where you do think those digital images are coming from? Hand-made digital
cameras? Hand-made film exposed in hand-made cameras, processed individually
by hand, and scanned on a hand-made scanner.

The big think about digital printing is that the photographer is in control.
And that only works if the lab is predictable, consistent, repeatable, etc.

Of course, you can offer post-processing services as an optional extra. But
IMHO that should be kept separate from printing.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

"babelfish" wrote in message
news:YaW8h.6987$oP6.3464@trnddc03...


You've got it backwards because you've been trained to think you're
ordering fast food from a wall board menu at McDonalds.

What is your URL for your web site?

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
Dry Creek has a good reputation, which is why [I presume] that Costco is
using
them. So, you didn't answer my question. Did you run the test [where you
determined DMAX numbers] based on a print using an older profile or the
newer
profile? I am just curious what those results might look like.

I looked it up, and the profile we used for comparison was of the new higher
resolution variety. I also looked deeper into Drycreek and discovered that,
like us, also use Gretag Macbeth's Profiler Pro software to create their
profiles and Xrite spectros, so their equipment and software have the same
capabilities as ours. Having the same software doesn't necessarily mean that
they make their profiles in the same way though as evidenced by the fact
that they needed to upgrade to a higher resolution which they should've been
using all along for photo profiling. Generic profiles like this are better
than nothing, but not very accurate. As I've stated before, a really good
profile takes a lot more than Drycreek is doing no matter what they claim.
Whether or not the average image will show the difference is the question.
Often it will not, but in many cases it will be quite obvious when it's
wrong.



BTW ... Costco only offers a single paper, a Fuji Crystal Archive paper in
glossy and lustre versions.


We use a lot of Fuji also as well as Kodak and Mitsubishi depending on the
need. There are three kinds of Fuji Crystal Archive and only has a higher
quantity of silver in it. The cheaper version is what Costco and many
competing labs use and this is one reason why they have limited dmax and
gamut. They save a few pennies per square foot, but at the prices they
charge it adds up fast.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse"
Still, I will be glad to do side by side comparisons pretty soon. I value
the
quality over the price, in general. I think you are likely correct, but
Costco does offer an incredible value for a color profiled option, and I
must
do the due diligence to rule them in or out.

I totally agree. For what they charge they do a great job for most people
and needs. It's just not a custom or professional quality service or
product. It's like most people can treat a wound as well as a doctor, but
when you need a doctor a simple band aid won't do. Let's not kid ourselves
here, but don't expect the price to be the same.

"jeremy"

What is your URL for your web site?

www.technicalphoto.com is the site, but you won't find much in the way of
services lists or pricing there since we deal in a more personal way with
our customers. Custom work can't be done in volume anyway.

"Philip Homburg" wrote

No, it means that for me, a lab in the US will probably be unable to
compete
with a lab in .nl because the shipping costs are much higher for the lab
in
the US.

True. Shipping costs are too high even within the states which is why we
generally don't offer a discount mail order service.

I don't know what Time Warner does, but the current consumer lab I use is
very predictable. It may not be repeatable to within 0.1 delta-E, but it
works
well enough.

Stick with what's good enough for your needs. I agree.

It looks like you want to offer a service that I don't want to buy.

Agreed. We're not for everyone, and I never suggested as much. I just wanted
to point out the differences in approach between a place like Costco and a
custom lab. Since most people have no experience with custom labs, I thought
that it was a good thread to follow.

I want a predictable, repeatable way of converting bits to high quality
prints.
In the ideal case, I can simulate your printer on my computer, and
determine
what is best. Then (again in the ideal) case, if I like the print that
results from the bits I sent, I should be able to send you the same bits
in
10 years time, and get exactly the same print.

Ideal case is right. Not likely. Materials and technology change too
quickly. The Fuji paper we buy today doesn't match the paper bought last
year. There's a revolution every two years in imaging and don't expect
anyone to stay put. In three years I expect nearly all prints to be inkjet
anyway. As for simulations, unless you're using one of the new high end Eizo
monitors, you can't see all the possisble color gamut of a photo print.
Professionals who do this all day long have a hard time with it and they
need to get proofs and make their edits before making final prints. No
profiles are that good. Of course, monitors and people who use them aren't
either.

It doesn't matter if different labs provide different results from a
single
digital image. As long as the labs provide all the data I need to model
their printing services, I can come up with the right image for each
printer.

But if the lab is limiting your potential image quality, you should know
that. Predictability isn't everything.

You are sort of implying that printing has to rely on personal service.
And that is probably why you lose customers. Mass produced item can be of
high quality. Many people are willing to pay for better than average mass
produced items. Very few people can afford hand crafted items.

Agreed on the cost. There are some services we offer that lend themselves to
the mass market like slide processing and slides from digital, even high end
drum scanning. But printing can be very personal. People see color
differently and they have different, sometimes strange expectations. I've
been offering high end printing for 30 years and I'm still amazed by it. The
personal touch in printing is very important and that's where we differ.

So instead of going to you, people will buy a high quality (mass produced)
printer, and make their own prints.

True again, but they usually have limited knowledge about getting the craft
to perform at its best. It was no different when amateurs all bought their
own enlargers and developing kits in the 40's and 50's. Some of them will do
very well, most would be better off at a discounter, and a few will still
demand the work of a professional.

The big think about digital printing is that the photographer is in
control.
And that only works if the lab is predictable, consistent, repeatable,
etc.

-and hopefully good (if that matters to anyone anymore)

Of course, you can offer post-processing services as an optional extra.
But
IMHO that should be kept separate from printing.

It always is - at $95 per hour.

Respectfully,
john

Originally Posted by

Hello,

I heard, that today there is no need anymore for traditional films
(negative or diapositve) because by postprocessing digital camera
shots(e.g. with Photoshop) everything can be done/achieved?


Is that true and is it really that simple?


Any feedback is appreciated very much. Thank you!

John

If film is so close to extinction as the doom and gloom prophets are so fond of telling the consumer and amateur photographic enthusiast, why are film companies like Ilford doing so well, selling their traditional films and papers?
Why are photo-forums like APUG (Anologue Photography Users Group) etc so popular?
Yes, digital is fast becoming the most popular way of taking photographs, but film photography is far from dead and there are still many photographers who thoroughly enjoy producing fine B&W prints on good ol` traditional silver gelatin papers.
We`re not all hooked on using D-SLR`s, Photoshop and ink-jet printers you know?
Digital Mono sucks.